Suzanne wrote:
> When a designer does work for hire, there are several risks. The biggest is
> that someone else may be hired down the road to modify a web site, and it
> may end up looking nothing like the artist's original. In fact, it may be
> something of an embarrassment. A graphic designer's portfolio is all
> important: it is how we sell our services. With print work, there's no risk
> of alteration. I simply put the printed piece in my portfolio, and that's
> that. But Web sites are never fixed, so when the client alters a Web site,
> I may lose a valuable component of my portfolio. I may have spent 3 to 6
> months on creating a Web site for you that could serve as evidence that I
> know how to do all the latest bells 'n whistles. If you change the site so
> that it's no longer something I'd be proud to display as my work, then I
> end up with a huge hole in my visual "resume."
Agreed. But why does your portfolio have to be the live site? Seems
easy enough to put the good parts on a zip disk. I guess i'm not sure I
see the logic in expecting a site to stay a static piece over time,
graphically or otherwise.
>
> The other risk is loss of future income that may arise from changes to a
> Web site. If I've signed away my rights to the art, then I've also given up
> my rights to future income from changes, as well as any quality control
> that ownership of the rights affords me.
I'm sort of curious how you hold those rights to future changes. Are
you saying that by holding onto the rights to the art, you're indirectly
tying the customer to using you again for the upgrade (or having to go
buy new art)?
> Keep in mind that when you do this yourself, you run the risk of devaluing
> the artist's portfolio piece. You may be capable of doing it yourself, but
> I've seen some real abortions created by our clients who thought they knew
> what they were doing. Stuff like making a transparent gif on a white
> background for use over a colored background, leaving a raggedly-ass
> looking white matte edge around the graphic.
Right, I'd do this with a view toward preserving the quality of the
site, but, despite our lineage here, the UNF is a non-profit and we try
to act like one . . . so saving money on art modifications is something
I'd like them to be able to do.
Again, though, my interest in preserving the commercial art portfolio of
the designer, as the paying customer, is pretty minimal . . . even as
someone that respects artists and their work. My gut feeling is "hey,
it's a web site . . . it's *supposed* to be a little different with
time".
> Profit, quality control issues as listed above. Also, I'm going to be a lot
> more liberal with the client who pays me $30,000 for a site than I am with
> the client who pays me $3000.
This may be the bottom line. I am, in this case, working through
agencies with in-house staffs (whether the artists are on staff or
contract I don't know--my contract says I have to own the final product,
so that's their problem). Agencies are charging me closer to the low
end for the art, though . . .
Good thoughts, though . . . makes me wonder if I shouldn't ask the
agencies to bring the artists in to the next meeting so i can verify
that they at least have happy working arrangemenhts . . . (amazing how
terrified these agencies are to let me talk directly to coders,
designers and artists--I simply want to know the people do the work for
me and convey adequately what I expect without management mucking it up
on their end, but everyone is terrified of having their staff bought out
from underneath them. <g>)
B
____________________________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Web Consultants Association : Register on our web site Now
Web Consultants Web Site : http://just4u.com/webconsultants
If you lose the instructions All subscription/unsubscribing can be done
directly from our website for all our lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
